Many UC campuses saw dramatically higher yields (% of accepted students actually enrolling) last year. As a result we knew acceptance rates were going to drop this year. But the fall has been stunning. Evidently UCSD only accepted 6.12% of applicants this year. To put this in perspective, Yale accepted 6.3% of applicants, Princeton & Columbia 7% and MIT 7.9%. Harvard accepted 6% of applicants. If this persists expect the UC campuses to begin to dominate more university rankings.

Edit/add: after thinking about those numbers, I questioned their validity. The person who claimed the 6.12% figure showed me an email from UCSD, but that 6.12% was not a direct acceptance rate figure. It's probably at least double that rate. Still a dramatic fall from 2017's class when UCSD accepted over 34% of applicants through.

That 6.12% is not an acceptance rate. It's probably the % of spaces they have for all applications received. Their acceptance rate is prob still in the 30s%.

BTW the biggest increase came at Riverside.

I am curious as to why Santa Cruz is not held in higher esteem? The school has now been around for 54 years and the Chancellor has made dramatic moves in aligning with Silicon Valley, among other significant advances. Yet, I note it often is an afterthought among the UC campuses. I don't even have to mention the beauty of the area. Any opinions out there?

Bear8 said:

---

I am curious as to why Santa Cruz is not held in higher esteem? The school has now been around for 54 years and the Chancellor has made dramatic moves in aligning with Silicon Valley, among other significant advances. Yet, I note it often is an afterthought among the UC campuses. I don't even have to mention the beauty of the area. Any opinions out there?

---

Marketing? I don't know a single thing they excel at other than being chill, and I'm a Californian.

I would say their closest UC comp is UCSB, and they built a rep on partying, and thus became on of the premier party schools to apply to in the country.

Bear8 said:

---

I am curious as to why Santa Cruz is not held in higher esteem? The school has now been around for 54 years and the Chancellor has made dramatic moves in aligning with Silicon Valley, among other significant advances. Yet, I note it often is an afterthought among the UC campuses. I don't even have to mention the beauty of the area. Any opinions out there?

---

My daughter went to UCSC and graduated with a degree in molecular biology. Working at Stanford now and telling Stanfurdians what to do....She got published in some great papers while at UCSC and that was the reason her professor wanted her to go to Stanford. While working there she will be in 2 more papers and in one as a co author. My opinion is that the bio, chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science side of UCSC is very strong. Some of the more social related majors seem hair scratchers as I do not know how one can use those to get a job. But hey what do I know.

UC Merced is the future. In the heart of Trump Country.

Merced county is Clinton country. She defeated Trump 52-40 in the 2016 election

You know what Merced isn't? Student county. Kids do not want to go there....

A really interesting dynamic developed this year in UC applications and acceptances. For whatever reason, the UCs seemed to have a strong preference for public high school kids over private schools. I mean a really strong preference.

I've spoken with more than a dozen parents from private schools and they are all saying the exact same thing. My kid got into every out of state elite college they applied to and was rejected by every top tier UC. And from the public school parents I'm hearing almost the exact opposite. I've heard it often enough that I can safely say it's somewhat more than anecdotal.

As to the why, who knows? It may be that the public school kids are competing with non-college track peers in high school so their grades and class rankings are higher. My gut is that with the huge growth of applications (UCLA at over 130k and Cal not far behind) the UCs have chosen to not apply a qualitative ranking to the strength of respective schools and are just treating them all the same. Or maybe as public schools the UCs have chosen to serve public school kids over their peers with (purportedly) greater financial resources. Or maybe the UCs are getting a better yield from public high schools and have chosen not to waste an acceptance spot on kids who won't come (if you read the college confidential board you have 100s of posts in the UC Irvine thread saying UCI seems to have rejected virtually everyone with an SAT over 1520). Who knows?

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

Sebastabear said:

---

A really interesting dynamic developed this year in UC applications and acceptances. For whatever reason, the UCs seemed to have a strong preference for public high school kids over private schools. I mean a really strong preference.

I've spoken with more than a dozen parents from private schools and they are all saying the exact same thing. My kid got into every out of state elite college they applied to and was rejected by every top tier UC. And from the public school parents I'm hearing almost the exact opposite. I've heard it often enough that I can safely say it's somewhat more than anecdotal.

As to the why, who knows? It may be that the public school kids are competing with non-college track peers in high school so their grades and class rankings are higher. My gut is that with the huge growth of applications (UCLA at over 130k and Cal not far behind) the UCs have chosen to not apply a qualitative ranking to the strength of respective schools and are just treating them all the same. Or maybe as public schools the UCs have chosen to serve public school kids over their peers with (purportedly) greater financial resources. Or maybe the UCs are getting a better yield from public high schools and have chosen not to waste an acceptance spot on kids who won't come (if you read the college confidential board you have 100s of posts in the UC Irvine thread saying UCI seems to have rejected virtually everyone with an SAT over 1520). Who knows?

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Wonder if there's was something in your kid's profile/major choice that screamed "will go to Cal if accepted".

socaliganbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

A really interesting dynamic developed this year in UC applications and acceptances. For whatever reason, the UCs seemed to have a strong preference for public high school kids over private schools. I mean a really strong preference.

I've spoken with more than a dozen parents from private schools and they are all saying the exact same thing. My kid got into every out of state elite college they applied to and was rejected by every top tier UC. And from the public school parents I'm hearing almost the exact opposite. I've heard it often enough that I can safely say it's somewhat more than anecdotal.

As to the why, who knows? It may be that the public school kids are competing with non-college track peers in high school so their grades and class rankings are higher. My gut is that with the huge growth of applications (UCLA at over 130k and Cal not far behind) the UCs have chosen to not apply a qualitative ranking to the strength of respective schools and are just treating them all the same. Or maybe as public schools the UCs have chosen to serve public school kids over their peers with (purportedly) greater financial resources. Or maybe the UCs are getting a better yield from public high schools and have chosen not to waste an acceptance spot on kids who won't come (if you read the college confidential board you have 100s of posts in the UC Irvine thread saying UCI seems to have rejected virtually everyone with an SAT over 1520). Who knows?

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Wonder if there's was something in your kid's profile/major choice that screamed "will go to Cal if accepted".

---

In our particular case? Yeah I don't think that was much of a mystery

Quote:

---

As to the why, who knows?

---

Actually, its really simple. UC has long favored: first gen, low income, applicants that have overcome adversity and the like. Few such kids attend private high schools.

Quote:

---

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Not gonna help much, as kids in upper middle class suburban publics also tend to not be low income, first gen, etc.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

As to the why, who knows?

---

Actually, its really simple. UC has long favored: first gen, low income, applicants that have overcome adversity and the like. Few such kids attend private high schools.

Quote:

---

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Not gonna help much, as kids in upper middle class suburban publics also tend to not be low income, first gen, etc.

---

I really didn't find that to be the case in the late '70's at Cal. There were a ton of prep kids and kids that went to privates, and my feeling was they were even given grade preference because the view was there schools were more competitive (Cal was one of the fall back schools for prep kids that didn't get into Harvard, Yale or Princeton).

Your also suggesting that the more recent model of enrolling kids from wealthier families that can pay higher tuition to subsidize poor students (with financial aide) is on the wane, and the state or someone else is stepping up to the plate with more funding. Count me skeptical.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

As to the why, who knows?

---

Actually, its really simple. UC has long favored: first gen, low income, applicants that have overcome adversity and the like. Few such kids attend private high schools.

Quote:

---

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Not gonna help much, as kids in upper middle class suburban publics also tend to not be low income, first gen, etc.

---

Cal has the highest median family income of all UCs. They also have the smallest percentage of first gen college students. Under 20%.

And to Wife's point, we use affluent kids to subsidize poor kids.

So yes, being affluent AND attending public school probably does help get you into Cal.. statistically.

Not sure if people on this board will find this surprising or not. But it's not easy, or common really, being poor and first gen and somehow also being a Berkeley competitive applicant. This is not a large segment of the applicant pool.

Quote:

---

I really didn't find that to be the case in the late '70's at Cal.

---

Of course, not but then that was 50 years ago. Heck, back it the late '60's UCLA and Cal both had extremely high admit rates -- but then so did may other now highly selective schools.

Quote:

---

Your also suggesting that the more recent model of enrolling kids from wealthier families that can pay higher tuition to subsidize poor students (with financial aide) is on the wane, and the state or someone else is stepping up to the plate with more funding. Count me skeptical.

---

Not at all. UC is enrolling more wealthy kids from OOS (and full pay internationals) while supplanting the instate middle-upper class kids. And that is particularly true at the Big 3: Cal, UCLA and UCSD.

Take a look at the Pell grant trends at Berkeley and other campuses. The number hasn't changed over the past few years. That cannot happen by chance. Such kids are given a +factor in admissions. (Good public policy.)

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-headcounts

Didn't UC adopt a rule that if you are in the top 10% of your public high school then they will guarantee your admission to A UC campus (maybe not your preferred one)? I thought that rule was still in effect in response to Ward Connerly's war on affirmative action. Overlaying the financial issues with the preference for those who pay out of state tuition and you have the current situation. I found the international student enrollment figures staggering - a 13 fold increase in 20 years ('97 to 2017'?).

Sebastabear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

A really interesting dynamic developed this year in UC applications and acceptances. For whatever reason, the UCs seemed to have a strong preference for public high school kids over private schools. I mean a really strong preference.

I've spoken with more than a dozen parents from private schools and they are all saying the exact same thing. My kid got into every out of state elite college they applied to and was rejected by every top tier UC. And from the public school parents I'm hearing almost the exact opposite. I've heard it often enough that I can safely say it's somewhat more than anecdotal.

As to the why, who knows? It may be that the public school kids are competing with non-college track peers in high school so their grades and class rankings are higher. My gut is that with the huge growth of applications (UCLA at over 130k and Cal not far behind) the UCs have chosen to not apply a qualitative ranking to the strength of respective schools and are just treating them all the same. Or maybe as public schools the UCs have chosen to serve public school kids over their peers with (purportedly) greater financial resources. Or maybe the UCs are getting a better yield from public high schools and have chosen not to waste an acceptance spot on kids who won't come (if you read the college confidential board you have 100s of posts in the UC Irvine thread saying UCI seems to have rejected virtually everyone with an SAT over 1520). Who knows?

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Wonder if there's was something in your kid's profile/major choice that screamed "will go to Cal if accepted".

---

In our particular case? Yeah I don't think that was much of a mystery

---

In LA that has been the standard talking point for years. I can't speak to the suburban public schools, but the Hamilton HIgh Magnet has a very high acceptance rate into the top UC's, while parents from Harvard-Westlake and other top privates complain their kids have a tougher time. My theory is that the UC system rightfully (IMHO) support families who keep their kids in the public system. Most people who send their kids to the top privates in LA are hell-bent on the Ivies, Furd, or the Little Ivies and aren't too thrilled if their kids end up at Cal or UCLA. There's less to brag about to their douchy effing neighbors at the Brentwood Country Mart.

juarezbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

A really interesting dynamic developed this year in UC applications and acceptances. For whatever reason, the UCs seemed to have a strong preference for public high school kids over private schools. I mean a really strong preference.

I've spoken with more than a dozen parents from private schools and they are all saying the exact same thing. My kid got into every out of state elite college they applied to and was rejected by every top tier UC. And from the public school parents I'm hearing almost the exact opposite. I've heard it often enough that I can safely say it's somewhat more than anecdotal.

As to the why, who knows? It may be that the public school kids are competing with non-college track peers in high school so their grades and class rankings are higher. My gut is that with the huge growth of applications (UCLA at over 130k and Cal not far behind) the UCs have chosen to not apply a qualitative ranking to the strength of respective schools and are just treating them all the same. Or maybe as public schools the UCs have chosen to serve public school kids over their peers with (purportedly) greater financial resources. Or maybe the UCs are getting a better yield from public high schools and have chosen not to waste an acceptance spot on kids who won't come (if you read the college confidential board you have 100s of posts in the UC Irvine thread saying UCI seems to have rejected virtually everyone with an SAT over 1520). Who knows?

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Wonder if there's was something in your kid's profile/major choice that screamed "will go to Cal if accepted".

---

In our particular case? Yeah I don't think that was much of a mystery

---

In LA that has been the standard talking point for years. I can't speak to the suburban public schools, but the Hamilton HIgh Magnet has a very high acceptance rate into the top UC's, while parents from Harvard-Westlake and other top privates complain their kids have a tougher time. My theory is that the UC system rightfully (IMHO) support families who keep their kids in the public system. Most people who send their kids to the top privates in LA are hell-bent on the Ivies, Furd, or the Little Ivies and aren't too thrilled if their kids end up at Cal or UCLA. There's less to brag about to their douchy effing neighbors at the Brentwood Country Mart.

---

I feel personally attached by this comment.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I really didn't find that to be the case in the late '70's at Cal.

---

Of course, not but then that was 50 years ago. Heck, back it the late '60's UCLA and Cal both had extremely high admit rates -- but then so did may other now highly selective schools.

Quote:

---

Your also suggesting that the more recent model of enrolling kids from wealthier families that can pay higher tuition to subsidize poor students (with financial aide) is on the wane, and the state or someone else is stepping up to the plate with more funding. Count me skeptical.

---

Not at all. UC is enrolling more wealthy kids from OOS (and full pay internationals) while supplanting the instate middle-upper class kids. And that is particularly true at the Big 3: Cal, UCLA and UCSD.

Take a look at the Pell grant trends at Berkeley and other campuses. The number hasn't changed over the past few years. That cannot happen by chance. Such kids are given a +factor in admissions. (Good public policy.)

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-headcounts

---

Both Cal and UCLA cut back their number of OOS in response to criticism (and money) from Brown and the legislature. I'm not buying what your selling. Show me the stats.

Richmondbear2 said:

---

Merced county is Clinton country. She defeated Trump 52-40 in the 2016 election

---

The only thing worse that the guy who brings politics into a non-political discussion is the people who lack the maturity to not respond. Well done.

Sebastabear said:

---

A really interesting dynamic developed this year in UC applications and acceptances. For whatever reason, the UCs seemed to have a strong preference for public high school kids over private schools. I mean a really strong preference.

I've spoken with more than a dozen parents from private schools and they are all saying the exact same thing. My kid got into every out of state elite college they applied to and was rejected by every top tier UC. And from the public school parents I'm hearing almost the exact opposite. I've heard it often enough that I can safely say it's somewhat more than anecdotal.

As to the why, who knows? It may be that the public school kids are competing with non-college track peers in high school so their grades and class rankings are higher. My gut is that with the huge growth of applications (UCLA at over 130k and Cal not far behind) the UCs have chosen to not apply a qualitative ranking to the strength of respective schools and are just treating them all the same. Or maybe as public schools the UCs have chosen to serve public school kids over their peers with (purportedly) greater financial resources. Or maybe the UCs are getting a better yield from public high schools and have chosen not to waste an acceptance spot on kids who won't come (if you read the college confidential board you have 100s of posts in the UC Irvine thread saying UCI seems to have rejected virtually everyone with an SAT over 1520). Who knows?

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

I don't know, but the % of accepted students from public schools who end up matriculating to a UC is much, much higher than from private schools. This has been the case for many years. Maybe the UC just decided to focus on improving yields - if so, the easiest way would just be to prioritize public school applicants over privates.

One more data point -

My niece's daughter just got accepted into Cal as an undeclared major in Letters and Science. She's really into coding so she hopes to get a BA in CS. Apparently, a lot of kids do this because getting into the EE-CS program is really, really hard (as you would expect)

She got into the CS programs directly at UCSD, UCSC, and UCI with scholarship stipends at the latter two. She's waitlisted at Cal Poly and UCLA. She got rejected at Mudd, USC and Furd.

She going to a middle class Bay Area high school.

I recommended that she go to UCSD (where two of my sons went) because I think Cal is too cut-throat, but she has her heart set on Cal and that where she's going. Go Bears!

Robocheme said:

---

One more data point -

My niece's daughter just got accepted into Cal as an undeclared major in Letters and Science. She's really into coding so she hopes to get a BA in CS. Apparently, a lot of kids do this because getting into the EE-CS program is really, really hard (as you would expect)

She got into the CS programs directly at UCSD, UCSC, and UCI with scholarship stipends at the latter two. She's waitlisted at Cal Poly and UCLA. She got rejected at Mudd, USC and Furd.

She going to a middle class Bay Area high school.

I recommended that she go to UCSD (where two of my sons went) because I think Cal is too cut-throat, but she has her heart set on Cal and that where she's going. Go Bears!

---

A female CS grad from Cal? She's gonna stumble on top tier job offers in the valley.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/02/perfect-act-sat-scores-dont-mean-admission-to-top-universities/amp/

Quote:

---

The only thing worse that the guy who brings politics into a non-political discussion is the people who lack the maturity to not respond. Well done.

---

Irony

Quote:

---

I'm not buying what your selling. Show me the stats.

---

Sure, how about UC's own press reports:

"In its freshman admissions, UC Berkeley admitted 0.4 percent fewer California residents this year as compared to last year 9,715 students while admission for out-of-state students jumped 28 percent to 4,490 students."

'In May, the UC Board of Regents approved(link is external) a systemwide out-of-state student enrollment cap. Beginning in fall 2018, all UC campuses will be capped at enrolling 18 percent nonresidents unless a campus's 2017-18 student-body composition of out-of-state students exceeds 18 percent. At those campuses, including UC Berkeley, nonresident enrollment will be capped at the level of nonresident enrollment for 2017-18."

First gen offers of admissions also increased. (source: Daily Cal)

It's simple math, really. Undergrad enrollment is capped. % of Pell grantees remains flat. OOS admission offers "jumped." Nonresident enrollment at Cal was 11% in the entering class of 2000. (source Academic Senate report)

Last year OOS was 24%. That additional 13% of wealthy had to displace state residents, by definition.

(Not sure why this is such a difficult concept. It's a zero-sum game.)

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not buying what your selling. Show me the stats.

---

Sure, how about UC's own press reports:

"In its freshman admissions, UC Berkeley admitted 0.4 percent fewer California residents this year as compared to last year 9,715 students while admission for out-of-state students jumped 28 percent to 4,490 students."

'In May, the UC Board of Regents approved(link is external) a systemwide out-of-state student enrollment cap. Beginning in fall 2018, all UC campuses will be capped at enrolling 18 percent nonresidents unless a campus's 2017-18 student-body composition of out-of-state students exceeds 18 percent. At those campuses, including UC Berkeley, nonresident enrollment will be capped at the level of nonresident enrollment for 2017-18."

First gen offers of admissions also increased. (source: Daily Cal)

It's simple math, really. Undergrad enrollment is capped. % of Pell grantees remains flat. OOS admission offers "jumped." Nonresident enrollment at Cal was 11% in the entering class of 2000. (source Academic Senate report)

Last year OOS was 24%. That additional 13% of wealthy had to displace state residents, by definition.

(Not sure why this is such a difficult concept. It's a zero-sum game.)

---

Actually, with all due respect as your analysis is clever, it is not a zero sum game, because the total number of students increased, throwing off your percentage numbers. Cal and UC were gaming the system by increasing enrollment levels by increasing the number of foreign students, especially from Asia (think of UC as a mini-USC). The percentage of in state went down because the increase in total students is mostly due to an influx in foreign (as opposed to out of state) students. IN FACT, THE NUMER OF RESIDENT STUDENTS AT CAL AND UC IN GENERAL INCREASES EVERY YEAR AND HAS FOR MANY YEARS. THE UPSHOT IS THE NUMBER OF MOSTLY FOREGN STUDENTS HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY, REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE (but not absolute number) OF RESIDENTS. Cherrypicking lines from articles or UC statements is not quantitive analysis.

The enrollment game:

Here are UC's own numbers (go to the UC site, hit the tab Enrollment, and then Enrollment At A Glance and do UC and then Cal). I don't go back to 2000 where we didn't have today's issues and policies. Let us just start at 2011, when the first of the major State major budget cuts started to 2017 (2018 numbers don't include actual enrollment yet):

Cal/UC All Schools

2011
Number of students: 36,137 231,268
Percentage of in-state: 77.1 87
Pell Grants percent: 33 42
Undergrad number of residents: 19,855 166,254

2017
Number of students: 41,891 273,179
Percentage in state: 68.8 77
Pell grants: 27 42 (yes, unchanged)
Undergrad number of residents: 23,006 179,530

During this period the number of students from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan increased approximately 20,000 (400 plus percent gain), 1,500, 1,000, and 1,000, respectively. The undergrad resident enrollment numbers go back to 2013 only. Nevertheless, the comments here about number of residents enrolled dropping is THIS THREAD is bull crap. Indeed the number of residents admitted at Cal and UC continues to go up, year after year. Almost the entire increase during the period I referenced (over 80%) in the gross UC numbers increase is attributable to increasing foreign enrollment (Cal actually was less - a little over 50%, and I blame Sonny's recruiting policies for out of state domestic recruits for the number being lower than other UCs (joke somewhat intended).

The income game: I'm going to cherry pick a NY Times article on the Cal class of 2013 (the article says these numbers were derived by looking at US tax returns, which I find suspect (how did they author get access to family tax returns?). In any event:

Median family income for Cal students: $119,900
Median family income for Cal students from top 1%: 3.8%
Median family income for Cal students from top 5%: 23%

Median family income for Cal students from top 20%: 54%

All four levels are among the highest for California schools. And in the 1% to 5% top income category, Cal is among the highest of peer schools.

Cal also is among the highest with 7.3% families being in the bottom 7%.

BTW: the article reads like an ad for Cal, as the how Cal students fare after college is off the charts high.



Several conclusions re: Cal:

1) Cal has less Pell grant students than before and far less compared to other UCs (I think one poster mentioned this).

2) Cal enrolls a lot of kids from high income families.

3) The high income numbers are so huge, they can't just be attributed to out of state students because there are not sufficient enough numbers of out of state students, and the purported increase certainly isn't from the out of state (as opposed to foreign since THE NEW YORK TIMES DOESN'T HAVE ACCES TO FOREGN TAX RETURNS).

4) A substantial portion of the increase in non-resident enrollment is due to the increase in enrollment of foreign students. The number of resident students has been increasing. The number out of state (but not foreign) increases is less than 5%, not 13% (admittedly we are dealing with different time periods, but I can prove from the website the majority of the gain still was due to foreign and resident students and the increasing the size of enrollment from 2000 to 2011), leaving you somewhere around 5% still).

5) Saying "[T]hat additional 13% of wealthy [out of state residents] had to displace state residents, by definition" is inconsistent with actual numbers because:

a) There was no displacement of resident students whose numbers actually increased each year.
b) The family income number are too high to be attributed to any large degree to out of state students, and a majority of the increase in out of state students comes from foreign students who are not taken into account in the income study.
c) Cal seems to be admitting less lower income students in absolute terms given the drop in Pell Grants (this could also be an immigration issue, though illegal immigrant families often file tax returns). If anything the higher tuition payment is subsidizing those who do not qualify for Pell grants due to family income or immigration status.

The premise makes even less sense when applied to UC in general.

Quote:

---

1) Cal has less Pell grant students than before and far less compared to other UCs (I think one poster mentioned this).

---

Indeed, Cal has -- wait for it -- 19 -- fewer Pell Grant students in 2017 than in 2013. But yes, 2017 does have 7 fewer than 2016....

Quote:

---

2) Cal enrolls a lot of kids from high income families.

---

Of course, admissions to all selective colleges favors kids from higher income families. But not sure its relevant.

The point is that full pay OOS (and internationals) are displacing instate kids. That is a public policy of UC. Pell Grants apps are held relatively constant. First Gen have increased. Again simple math.

btw: over the past 4 years, the # of internationals enrolled at Cal have increased by ~400, and the number of OOS domestic have increased by over 1,000. With the exception of the rare Regent's scholars these folks are full pay, i.e, top 5%'ers.

Every year for the past 5 years there's an alarmist article in the LA Times/Chron/Mercury News that goes something like this "CA admits DOWN at UC!", and everyone loses their mind. And every year it has to be pointed out that, in total numbers, CA resident admits are actually up. Every. Year.

Every few months someone on BI claims their kid didn't/couldn't get in because their spot went to some poor first gen kid, and every few months it needs to be pointed out that Cal's median income percentiles are actually on the high end, highest in the UC! And our first gen student population is basically the same as it is at schools like UNC.

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/03/26/reports-circulate-even-more-difficult-year-be-admitted-leading

More evidence that it's getting harder to get into any UC and how it's become chaotic.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

As to the why, who knows?

---

Actually, its really simple. UC has long favored: first gen, low income, applicants that have overcome adversity and the like. Few such kids attend private high schools.

Quote:

---

But bottom line, if you really want your kid to go to Cal you should think hard about sending them to public school if that's an option where you live.

---

Not gonna help much, as kids in upper middle class suburban publics also tend to not be low income, first gen, etc.

---

I believe it is still the case that there is a strong preference (at one time 50% of the class) for being in the top 1% of your class from a California high school, public or private.

That is usually difficult to achieve from a private school or high achieving public.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

1) Cal has less Pell grant students than before and far less compared to other UCs (I think one poster mentioned this).

---

Indeed, Cal has -- wait for it -- 19 -- fewer Pell Grant students in 2017 than in 2013. But yes, 2017 does have 7 fewer than 2016....

Quote:

---

2) Cal enrolls a lot of kids from high income families.

---

Of course, admissions to all selective colleges favors kids from higher income families. But not sure its relevant.

The point is that full pay OOS (and internationals) are displacing instate kids. That is a public policy of UC. Pell Grants apps are held relatively constant. First Gen have increased. Again simple math.

btw: over the past 4 years, the # of internationals enrolled at Cal have increased by ~400, and the number of OOS domestic have increased by over 1,000. With the exception of the rare Regent's scholars these folks are full pay, i.e, top 5%'ers.

---

The numbers speak for themselves. As does the obvious conclusions.

I still don't quite understand the option of Community College -> Cal/4-year not coming up very often in conversations like these. Not only is the admit rate way higher, but it is substantially cheaper overall. The UC system--really, the public education system in CA--rewards this path. It's just that there is a stigma involved. How do we get rid of that stigma?

This is the path I took, and I don't think my Cal experience was degraded at all. I'll be singing the praises of this route to my own children for their whole childhood.

Go Bears!

BearInMotown said:

---

I still don't quite understand the option of Community College -> Cal/4-year not coming up very often in conversations like these. Not only is the admit rate way higher, but it is substantially cheaper overall. The UC system--really, the public education system in CA--rewards this path. It's just that there is a stigma involved. How do we get rid of that stigma?

This is the path I took, and I don't think my Cal experience was degraded at all. I'll be singing the praises of this route to my own children for their whole childhood.

Go Bears!

---

Well, if more people do it, the admit rate drops

BTW the transfer admit rate for Cal is still lower than the regular admit rate at Michigan, UVA, UNC, Texas etc. So it's higher than its own frosh admit rate, for sure. But it's still a pretty long shot, to put it mildly. Given these odds, I'd say take the Cal offer when you can get it.

Have Cal (or any of the UC's for that matter) published their acceptance rates for this year's applicant pool? I haven't seen anything conclusive.

The only thing I saw is that UCLA congratulated its "16,000+" accepted students. By that math, UCLA's acceptance rate (for freshmen, not including community college transfer students) is probably somewhere around 14% - 14.5%.

16,000 acceptances (estimated) / 113,400 freshman applications = 14.1%

Cal receives substantially fewer freshman applications than UCLA (89,300 this year), but also accepts slightly fewer. Assuming Cal admits 15,600 (as it did last year), Cal's acceptance rate would be 17.5%.

I don't particularly like that UCLA has become, in the past few years, the hardest UC of all to get accepted into, stats-wise. But some of that is surely state demographics, since probably 60% or more of the state's population is now located in the "southland" (think: LA Basin / Inland Empire & other desert cities / Orange County / San Diego.